I believe Apple's terms still specify you can't use code that is publicly source licensed, which this program is a derivative work of DOSBox. Additionally the company would have to release their own source to the app under the GPL to be in compliance with the GPL terms. So there you have it...

Really, are they so threatened by a 30-year-old operating system that they have to kill it?

This is the ONE reason that I hate Apple. Wonderful hardware, great software, management needs to be shot. I am a geek. If somebody arbitrarily decrees that certain classes of software WILL NOT be allowed on a platform, I arbitrarily decree that they get absolutely none of my money.

If Apple would have a change of heart about such things, I would be their biggest fan. As it is, I am their worst foe.

Really, are they so threatened by a 30-year-old operating system that they have to kill it?

Anything that would allow a user to run a non-Apple-approved program, anything at all, even a DOS emulator, is against the rules. After all, the users might start thinking that they have some kind of right to run software that was not approved, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting to write programs without paying the fee, or worse yet, they might start wanting to use libre software! None of this, of course, is allowable in Steve Jobs' world, where people are just sheep who are in desperate need of a shepherd.

Remember, the Apple ideology is that people should not have any desire to hack their systems; they should simply use them, and rely on Apple to take care of technical details. This has been the case for a very long time now, and as long as Steve Jobs is in charge, you can bet that there won't be any change.

I was all: "Awesome!", Then I saw that it's $0.99. I could compile it myself, but that would cost me $99. Every time I think I've decided to stick with iPhone4 for my next phone, I see a reason to buy an n900 instead.

An incorrect quote. "The (laws) are meant to be (followed), not to be (questioned). And while I'm a (citizen) I'm very happy about these things. Something that doesn't require to be (thought about) and that doesn't need to be (discussed) and where even someone is actively taking away any temptation for me to waste my time on it is a nice change now and then."

Products aren't meant to hacked. That's a voluntary process done by those with the skill and inclination when they feel the need, either from a defect in the original product, a lack of functionality in the original product, or a sense of curiosity and invention. You don't have to hack anything, you don't have to think either, but some people do, and many people feel that someone attempting to prevent them from doing non-dangerous and perfectly legal things with the products they bought is wrong. If you want to read something about the legal basis many people refer to, please look up "Doctrine of First Sale".

IMO, if you aren't hurting anyone, it's none of their business what you do with your property. So if you don't want to alter your stuff, that's fine, all you need to do is to do nothing, but to say that others shouldn't because you don't feel like it is rather deplorable on your part.

Are there hundreds of games that you think it would be "Awesome!" to have on your phone that costs $500 and requires a $2,000 service contract, or are you just trying to make a point in the most ridiculous way possible?

Apparently the new MacBook Air borrows features from iOS and we can expect to see more iOS "features" in OSX as time goes by. I can't see any proprietary operating system provider to not be tempted by this level of consumer/vendor control and taxation. Steve's just be the first to realise that handcuffs are best slipped on gently over a period of time rather than ham fisted "Plays For Sure" edicts.

Why is today's Slashdot reading more and more like an RMS essay?

Fortunately Windows is too much of a sprawling shanty town to be readily ammenable to similar attempts for a while yet.

Not lying dude, just being sloppy and lazy, as in, my goal was not to deceive, it was to point out that balking at $1 for a favorite game when you are implicitly willing to spend hundreds (is that better?) just to carry the thing is ridiculous.

(and I wasn't trying to paint the iPhone as being expensive, Wired says it isn't particularly so:

I was setting a benchmark of comparison for the $1, which isn't really a relevant amount for a person that can afford an iPhone. So the $1 is effectively $0, and the OP was using that $0 to make a statement about not liking Apple's management of their platform. Which was ridiculous.)

Anything that would allow a user to run a non-Apple-approved program, anything at all, even a DOS emulator, is against the rules. Nice tautology there: "Anything that will let you do something not allowed is not allowed". How does one argue against that kind of thinking?

If you mean installation on your phone, then, yes, you'll have to pay $99. This does not relate to GPL, since it's not a restriction the app author has introduced.

Just the same, a GPL'd app can e.g. be written in a non-free (in any way) development tool, and you'll have to buy that tool to compile it even if you get the code. This has been very common on Windows.

I'd say more like an F1 car. Incredibly powerful but most people wouldn't have a clue how to drive it.

Early versions of Windows were a lot like early Fords - crap but popular. Now Windows 7 is like a modern Ford, after decades of refinement and being overtaken by other manufacturers they finally come out with something that is actually pretty good... Just as everyone is moving to flying cars.